CHAPTER 4: COMPOSITION AND DATE
4.3 DATE
4.3.1.2 Nehemiah arrived in 445 B.C., while Ezra arrived in 398 B.C
The second view has been duped the "reversal order" (Bracy,1988:84). As the name suggests, this school of thought reverses the traditional chronological order of Ezra and Nehemiah. Scholars of this school still date the mission of Nehemiah as having occured in 445 B.C. during the reign of Artaxerxes I Longimanus. The mission of Ezra is however, dated by them as being 398 B.C. during the reign of Artaxerxes II Mnemon (Throntveit,1989:1-2; Bracy,1988:84).
During the years of study of this issue, an impressive array of arguments were compiled by scholars to support the "reversal order." Albin van Hoonacker's initial work is the basic foundation of these
arguments (Bracy,1988:87-8). Below, we consider six of these arguments to support the "reversal order".
The first of these arguments is the textual rearrangement. The basic argument of Van Hoonacker is that the text has been rearranged by the Chronicler in such a manner that it only appears that Ezra preceded Nehemiah. Van Hoonacker lists five factors which attest to this arrangement: (1) the books of Ezra and Nehemiah have been relocated in the [Hebrew] canon from their original place at the end of Chronicles; (2) insertions or changes in the order of the texts are easy to recognize in such chapters as Nehemiah 1-3 and 7-13, and particularly in Ezra 4 where difficulties during the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes I are inserted in the story ofthe reconstruction of the temple during the times of Cyrus and Darius I; (3) Ezra 7-10 has no points of reference to either Ezra 1-6 or the Book of Nehemiah;
(4) there is a close analogy between Ezra 1-6 and 7-10; and, (5) the statement that the events of Ezra 7-10 occurred in the seventh year of Artaxerxes while the activities of Nehemiah 1-12 occurred in the twentieth year appears to indicate the prior presence of Ezra although there is no clarity as to whether it was the same Artaxerxes who reigned during these two periods (Hoonacker,1923:486;
Bracy,1988:88).
The second argument is the contemporary roles of Ezra and Nehemiah. The absence of Ezra in Nehemiah 10 led Van Hoonacker to an interesting conclusion. Contrary to the fairly common view that Ezra was dead by the time of Nehemiah's second mission to Jerusalem, Van Hoonacker believes that Ezra was still alive and aware ofNehemia's second attempt to reform the mixed marriage issue (Neh. 13:23-30). Later, in 398 B.C., Ezra returned to Jerusalem and carried out his reforms (Ezra 9,10). He had laid the groundwork for this many years earlier in the initial reforms which are recorded in Nehemiah 8 (Bracy, 1988:90).
According to Van Hoonacker, the great fame of Ezra in Jewish tradition can be understood only if he came in 398 B.C. after Nehemiah. It was Nehemiah who had done such mighty deeds as rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem and overcoming the enemies ofthe Jews. It is understood that for Ezra to have been remembered, Nehemiah must have already passed from the scene (Bracy, 1988 :90).
The third argument is the population of Jerusalem. Those scholars who believe that Nehemiah preceded Ezra base their argument on the population of Jerusalem within the post-exilic Jewish community. Upon reading the text it becomes evident that they were very distinct differences, both in composition and size, in the population during the times of Nehemiah and Ezra (Bracy,1988:95).
Wright explains what the text says about the population size:
in Ezra 10:1 we read of 'a very great congregation' that assembled in Jerusalem. Yet in the time of Nehemiah, Nehemiah himself records that there were only a few people living in the city (Ne.vii.4). A sudden drop in the population between the time of Ezra and that of Nehemiah is unlikely. If, on the other hand, Ezra lived after Nehemiah had induced the people to settle in Jerusalem, then Ezra's great congregation is perfectly understandable (Wright, 1946:7).
Similarly, in his arguments, Van Hoonacker contends that the population of Jerusalem during the missions of Nehemiah and Ezra affirms the priority of Nehemiah. The text of Neh. 7:4 states: "Now the city was large and spacious but the people in it were few and the houses were not built". Then, in Neh. 11: 1-2, the text reveals how Nehemiah resolved this situation by repopulating Jerusalem (Bracy,1988:95). Contrary to this shortage of people living in Jerusalem in Nehemiah's time, Van Hoonacker notes that the text apparently indicates that the city was heavily populated in the days of Ezra. Although Ezra 9:4 is rather general, Ezra 10: 1 states that "a very large assembly, men, women, and children, gathered to him [Ezra] from Israel; ... " According to Van Hoonacker, this "very large assembly" was the result of Nehemiah's successful effort to repopulate Jerusalem. He also points out that the repopulation of the city could not have occurred until after the walls had been rebuilt (Hoonacker,1923:45; Bracy,1988:95)
The fourth argument is about the wall of Jerusalem. When Nehemiah was first visited in Susa by the envoy of messengers from Jerusalem, he was told that "the wall of Jerusalem is broken down and its gates are burned with fire" (Neh. 1 :3); his subsequent inspection of the wall confirmed the report (Neh. 2: 13). Nehemiah's successful efforts to rebuild the wall secured a place of honor for himself in Jewish annals (Sir. 49:13; Bracy,1988:97). However, "Ezra's Memoirs" indicate that the wall of Jerusalem had existed since the time of Ezra. In his prayer, Ezra recalls the goodness of God and gives thanks that God had revived a remnant "to raise up the house of our God, to restore its ruins, and to give us a wall ['gader'] in Judah and Jerusalem" (Ezra 9:9; Wright, 1946:7; Hoonacker,1923:
56). Van Hoonacker notes that in his prayer Ezra expressed the idea that a safe place to live had been given to the people. On the contrary, the text indicates that such a peaceful condition did not exist in 458 B.C., because at that time the Jews were forcefully prevented from rebuilding Jerusalem (Ezra 4:7-24). Therefore, to Van Hoonacker, this incongruity is further evidence that Nehemiah preceded Ezra to Jerusalem. How else could there be a "wall" in Jerusalem in the time of Ezra? (Hoonacker,
1923:56; Bracy,1988:97).
Van Hoonacker also questions the seeming lack of concern by Ezra about the deplorable conditions in Jerusalem if the city was still in ruins at the times of his mission. Since "the king [had] granted him [Ezra] all he requested" (Ezra 7 :6), surely Ezra would have requested the authority to rebuild the city walls! However, the edict of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:11-26) dealt only with the temple and the laws of God: there is not a single reference to the restitution of the city walls or the houses of the people (Bracy,1988:98).
The fifth argument concerns the marital reforms. According to the canonical text, Ezra was confronted by the princes of Jerusalem after he had completed the deliverance of the king's edicts to the governors of the surrounding provinces. They informed Ezra,
... the people ofIsrael and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the land, according to their abominations, those of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy race has intermingled with the peoples of the land; indeed, the hands of the princes and the rulers have been foremost in this unfaithfulness (Ezra 9:1-2.).
Extremely shocked by their report, Ezra did not waste any time in correcting this blatant violation of God's law (Bracy, 1988: 100-1). Nehemiah also dealt with the same issue during both his first and second missions to Jerusalem (Bracy,1988:100-1). Van Hoonacker disagrees with this sequence of events. He could not reconcile the harsh actions of Ezra with the subsequent reoccurrence of the same situation only thirteen years later, at the time of Nehemiah's first mission (Bracy,1988:101).
The final argument is about the historical points of reference. Proponents of the reversal order also point to several "facts" of history as proof of their view. They correlate various historical events and
persons to provide a logical sequence for the priority ofN ehemiah' s mission in 445 B. C (Bracy, 1988:
104-5). One of these historical proofs was the political situation which existed within the Persian Empire in the seventh year of Artaxerxes I (458 B.C.). Led by Inaros, Egypt had revolted against Persian control and had gained control of the entire Delta region. Supported by their Athenian allies, the Egyptians maintained their freedom until 454 B.C. However, Artaxerxes 1's defeat of the Athenian fleet at Mendesian forced the Athenians to end their support of Egypt, without which the Egyptians were soon defeated (Bracy, 1988: 105-6). Van Hoonacker argues that this period of warfare would have precluded the support of Artaxerxes I for Ezra's mission in 458 B.C. Instead of granting Ezra "all the silver and gold which you shall find in the whole province of Babylon" (Ezra 7: 16), Van Hoonacker believes that all the resources and attention would have been absorbed by the wars with Egypt and Persia (Bracy,1988: 105-6). Edwin Yamauchi (1980: 12), however, argues that the situation in Egypt would have made it desirable for the Persians to have a friendly ally (i.e. Ezra) in Palestine at this time (Yamauchi, 1980: 12). Only after peace was achieved by the Treaty of Calli as (448 B.C.) would Artaxerxes I have been free to support any type of mission to Jerusalem. It is therefore understandable why Artaxerxes I readily supported Nehemiah in 445 B.C. (Hoonacker,1924:46). A rebuilt and reorganized Jerusalem under the leadership ofN ehemiah, the royal cupbearer, would have strengthened the position of the Persians in the western part of their Empire (Bracy,1988:105-6).
Such a policy by the Persians was widespread. Historical records have revealed that there were several military garrisons manned by Jewish soldiers in the services of the Persians. One ofthem was the fortress ofDaphnae ("Tapanes" cf. J er. 44: 1) which was located in Egypt's Delta region. Another Jewish garrison in Egypt was at Elephantine near the southern border of Egypt (Bracy, 1988: 1 05-6).
Furthermore, Van Hoonacker points to the succession list of high priests (Neh.l2:10-11, 12) as further historical evidence that supports his chronology. If the Eliashib ofNeh. 12: 10,22 is the same Eliashib who is the high priest ofNeh. 3: 1, then he was a contemporary of Nehemiah. Eliashib was succeeded by Joiada who in tum was succeeded by Johanan (Bracy,1988:106). So Van Hoonacker was to identify Jehonanan the son of Eliaship (Ezra 10:6). He believes that Jonathan (Neh. 12:11), lohanan (Neh. 12:22), and lohanan the son of Eliashib (Neh. 12: 23) were the same as Johanan the son of Eliashib (Neh. 12:23) (Hoonacker,1924:51-53). Rowley (1952 :45-50) also argues that the lehohanan of Ezra 10:6 is the same person as the Jonathan ofNeh. 12: 11. Rowley states that "it is
simplest to regard Jonathan of verse 11 as a scribal slip for J ohanan [since] the difference in the Hebrew is very slight" (Rowley,1952:45-50). Since Jehohanan and Johanan are forms of the same name, and as ben can refer to either "son" or "grandson", this correlation of names may be valid (Rowley,1952:45-50). For Van Hoonacker, the absence of the title, "high priest," in Ezra 10:6 indicates that this Jehohanan was sufficiently known to tradition that the author (Chronicler) did not consider it necessary to use the formal title (Bracy,1988:106).
Van Hoonacker next identifies the Jehohanan of Ezra 10:6 as the same high priest Johanan who is mentioned in the Elephantine Papyrus. Since this papyrus document is dated about 407 B.C., Ezra must be in Jerusalem about the same time. Van Hoonacker also identifies "Bagoas, governor of Judah," who is mentioned in the Elephantine Papyri as the same "Bagoses, the general of another Artaxerxes' army," referred to by Josephus (Josephus, 1960:243). Hoonacker (1924:52) believes that this reference to "another Artaxerxes" refers to Artaxerxes II (Hoonacker,1924:52). This dual identification of Johanan and Bagoas thus confirms, at least for Van Hoonacker, Ezra's date in Jerusalem as 398 B.c. (Bracy,1988:107)
Rowley also uses Josephus's evidence as supportive evidence of the "reversal order". Josephus (1960) identifies a certain Jaddua as high priest in Jerusalem during the time of Alexander the Great, 330 B.C. (Josephus, 1960:243). Hoonacker (1924:52) also believes that it was Ezra who had put an end to the penalty imposed on the Jews by Bagoses since Artaxerxes had granted him an exemption from any cultictax (Ezra 7:24; Hoonacker,1924:52). Rowley believes this Jaddua to be the same as the one referred to in Neh. 12:22 (Rowley, 1952:150). He then works backward to date Nehemiah and Ezra in 444 B.C. and 358 B.C., respectively (Rowley, 1952: 150).
We therefore note that individually, the arguments of Van Hoonacker and other scholars of the
"reversal order" school of thought can be, and have been, attacked as invalid. However, the cumulative evidence is strong, and "in the balance of probabilities the scales still seem to come down on the side of Van Hoonacker's view" (Rowley, 1952: 159). The correlation of the high priests, the enemies of Nehemiah, and the use of the Elephantines Papyri as a chronological base line, provide strong support for the validity of the "reversal order" (Bracy,1988:11O).